2. The judgment below rendered a sentence within the recommended range according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s recognition of and reflects on the Defendant’s crime; (b) the Defendant agreed with the victim; and (c) the Defendant supported the Defendant with a bad mother due to dementia, etc.; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime despite a large number of violent crimes; (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime; and (e) the Defendant re-driving without obtaining a license even after having received a summary order on two occasions; and (e) took into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment; (d) relationship with the victim; (e) the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances before and after the instant crime.

The grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendant appear to be the circumstances that the lower court had already taken into account when determining the Defendant’s punishment. The lower court’s punishment is reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there are no circumstances suggesting that the said sentencing conditions have been changed in the appellate court.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted, since the court below's punishment is too heavy.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.